March 26, 2008

Hillary's meeting with Richard Scaife, perhaps the slimiest of the Republican media lords (and the one who most enthusiastically promoted fact-free smears of Bill Clinton) makes one suspect that the rumors are true, and that she has decided that, while she can't win the Democratic nomination, at least she can hurt Obama badly enough that he can't win, leaving Clinton a clear shot in 2012.

You know -- "The worse, the better". (Though based on what she and her beloved husband have been saying, it's by no means certain that she is bothered by the prospect of a McCain Presidency.)

Someone has to convince that Clintons that it's now or never for her. If neither she nor Obama is elected President this year, it will be time for us to look for someone new. If a broad range of Democrats tell her that she'll cut her own throat if she sabotages Obama, maybe she'll decide to retire with a little dignity left. And one doubts that Bill Clinton wants the destruction of Barack Obama and the election of John McCain to be his legacy.

If Clinton plays scorched earth politics against Obama now, she should know that the rest of us will play it against her four years from now.

1. Yes, I did vote for Nader in 2000. I repented in early 2002 and have been a servile Democrat ever since. After all the shit I had flicked at me for my Nader vote, it annoys me no end to see the Clintonistas relying on the same sabotage strategy that Nader did.

2. No, I'm not an Obama loyalist. There are some things about Obama I like, and some that I'm not so sure about. I supported Edwards while he was in the race, or maybe Dodd (though his campaign never really got off the ground), and only switched to Obama after it had become a two-person race. Until a couple of days ago I even tried to calm down the anti-Hillary militants, and if Hillary wins the primary, I'll support her in the general, no matter how hard she tries to convince me not to.

3. Should we really be surprised? Bill Clinton defeated the Congressional Democrats so thoroughly during his terms as President that the Republicans ended up gaining control of Congress. With the dog-in-the-manger DLC, you always have to ask whether their goal is to take office, or whether it's just to make sure that no one to the left of them ever wins. They talk as though their centrism is a response to political necessity, but they often act as though they're motivated primarily by a bitter hatred of anyone more liberal than they are.

Posted by John Emerson at March 26, 2008 5:01 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/3697

Comments

Will Hillary be the new Nader?

No. I voted for Nader three times and will vote for him again. I will never, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote for Hillary. And I'm no Obamista either -- I won't vote for him either. Or any center-right corporatist.

Posted by: richard at March 26, 2008 12:38 PM

John, you're just as bad as the RepubliCONs. (By extension every worthless Obamabot is as well.)
Barack Obama hasn't even BEGUN to face serious campaign attacks. If you and the other 'bots are all aflutter over these conspiracy theories you have regarding Hillary's "secret agenda to destroy the Democratic Party", just wait till the Republicans have Obama in their sights.
Hillary has been attacked for a solid 16 years by the far-right and has managed to not only survive but emerge the winner. Barack Obama has barely been dealt the level of attacks that Hillary faced yet it seems as though anything and everything that happens to Barack is (in the Obamaniacs' view) all Hillary's fault. Well, I hope you and your ilk remember this when the first official Swiftboating ad against Obama hits the airwaves pulling up some of the more unseemly bits of Obama's "record".
I'm getting so damn sick of all this Obama worship. It's getting to a point that while progressives belittle Dubya's "27%ers", they fail to see that they are no better when it comes to Obama. When Barack was one of half a dozen MEN competing for the Dem nomination, nearly every debate was the men against Hillary.
And, I want you to get off this "Carville's mouth washed with soap" bull. Richardson's own state went for Hillary. Latinos have largely gone for Hillary. What does Richardson hope to gain by his endorsement? If he expects loyalty from Obama, his own LACK of loyalty is going to do him in.
This place is getting as bad as MoveOn.org. It's fine for you to support a candidate, but WHY is it necessary for you (and I mean, you personally) to tear down Hillary in order to support Obama? About the only thing that's going to emerge from this whole deal is that a LARGE number of Democrats are going to sit out the general election (or, in the very best scenario, not vote for President but elect Dems down the line) because the MEDIA (which includes all the "progressive" blogs) have all "predicted" this to happen. And, because of the "progressive" blogs (and I largely blame those which have turned into unofficial ObamaforPresident websites), we're going to wind up with McCain as President, and, more scarily, a Congress that's not only Republican, but HEAVILY Republican.

Posted by: JosephW at March 26, 2008 6:59 PM

Well, gee, Joseph, you really don't like me! I feel like Sally Field.

Hillary came out of all those attacks with a disapproval rating approaching 50%.

Carville's little Judas quip was bone dumb in addition to being nasty. Nobody in the world, except Clinton loyalists, takes Richardson's debt to the Clintons that seriously. At's as if they think they own him. And there's no way that I would trust Mr. Matalin-Cheney with anything.

The Scaife connection was the last straw for me, though Hillary has done lots of nasty stuff. "Why do I tear down Hillary?" It's laughable that you should ask that. I didn't until very recently, but she's been talking like a Republican recently.

I too fear a weakened candidate losing to McCain, but the chances of that deciding the Congressional races are pretty slim. "HEAVILY Republican"? You're being silly.

Posted by: John Emerson at March 26, 2008 7:16 PM

My history: I voted for Bill Clinton in '92. Voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000, because I wanted something more than triangulation and lesser evilism. Voted for David Cobb, 2004 Green Party candidate, because a sustainable alternative to the status quo has to be based on a political party, and not a personality (and besides that, nothing Nader did during that election cycle made any sense to me). I'll very likely be voting for a Green, black, woman candidate this fall (Cynthia McKinney). So, I've got no dog in this race... I'm a happily uninvolved outside observer.

My take:

Obama and Clinton are center-right Democrats, members of the American elite, and solidly in the corporatist mainstream of their party. While I admit that the unique awfulness of the Dubya administration (not just the man, but everyone around him) means that either one would be a vast improvement, I don't see either one acting as doing anything more than perpetuating the corporatist status quo that is leading to global ecocide.

As a phenomenon, Obama is interesting on an intellectual level... I watched his speech on race last week and was impressed by the way he was able to frame the issue in a larger context. What his election might mean, on a practical basis, to the multiple colors of the American underclass, is another thing entirely. I suspect grave disillusionment is likely to be the outcome of an Obama presidency... not particularly because of the the man himself, but because of the system he exists within, and his chosen stance in relation to it.

Disclaimer: Nothing I say below is aimed at John.

With regards to Hilary, I find the attempts to write her off, and the level of antipathy aimed at her, fascinating...

a) memes and terminology propagated by the most maniacal of the right-wing Hilary haters are being echoed, almost word for word, by those on the left

b) Obama's commanding lead is as much an artifact of the Democratic Party's broad reliance on caucus politics, as it is of the man's political attraction... he and Hilary are and have been neck and neck in the polls for an extended period. It's even money as to who would win if a nationwide primary were held today... that said, it seems clear that Obama's supporters are more energetic and enthusiastic than Hilary's. Is that reason enough to hand him the nomination? Possibly... but if I were a Democrat, I'd like to see all the votes tallied up first.

On a broader level, the way the race has gone, makes me think that a lot of unconscious misogyny is being manifested in relationship to Hilary's candidacy. I think, far more than Obama, she's paying the price for being "the first". I think, unconsciously, a lot of folks still have a hard time dealing with the idea of a strong-willed, determined woman going after a position of power.

I'm not sure what to think about the situation... is it a sign of progress on race, that a candidate's gender is far more of a liability than their race?